Re: [Cbor] Do we care about array-tags issue 6, clamped-uint8 arrays?

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8341201EC for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awyeb1CzSJzo for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (relay8-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 357B71201E3 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: 31.133.157.10
Received: from dhcp-9d0a.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9d0a.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.157.10]) (Authenticated sender: sean@seantek.org) by relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AE2B1BF20E; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:17:45 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
In-Reply-To: <DECE061A-328D-4B1B-BEB5-D73F5779B554@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:17:43 -0400
Cc: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, cbor@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1C432DAE-ABAA-4E02-84FB-57109563A86F@seantek.com>
References: <CANh-dXkkSJUOcHcBj1JRO20ULFVNNbu1GQU-j7bR7N-FCTt3HA@mail.gmail.com> <24038E27-C30B-47F4-91E8-68C02FCAE26D@tzi.org> <CANh-dXm0TLShk_9DT9fKq0CR4yJMr6=zntWL8fW2tB99o0Et3Q@mail.gmail.com> <3246C0B0-C5BF-4AC8-B99F-D9A44B780A2C@seantek.com> <DECE061A-328D-4B1B-BEB5-D73F5779B554@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/CAFnV4_p3Xt9XRDPvNcji7bSZLQ>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Do we care about array-tags issue 6, clamped-uint8 arrays?
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:17:51 -0000


> On Jul 25, 2019, at 12:50 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>; wrote:
> 
> On Jul 24, 2019, at 19:53, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> having the tags assigned
> 
> Too late, they already are assigned.
> 
> (If you think this shouldn’t have happened, please consider the WG’s current stance on changing the IANA considerations on 1+1 tags away from specification required.)

Recognizing the lateness of the comment, and that they have already been assigned, I will not pursue it further—it’s fine.

This thread raises an interesting point, namely, using CBOR tags to identify the type of object in protocol that exists elsewhere in an object oriented system, such as in other standards or other implementations. “Uint8ClampedArray” does not exist in JSON, but it exists in JavaScript/ES6 (which is both a standard and is backed by multiple conforming implementations.) I think this is a good design pattern and should be liberally employed with more CBOR tag use.

Sean